psychodrama research

Wed Dec 24 21:20:04 CST 2008

Hi Peter, thanks for the encouragement.
        Your email about what research can be is helpful, as it clarifies the different 
political purposes. (I am disposed to think of politics as the art of the possible, and 
like art, it involves promoting this and ignoring or deploring or detracting from that. In 
this sense, so many things should be recognized as implicitly if not explicitly supporting 
some idea, assumption.)
       In this case, there are different types of research---to begin with---: 
nomothetic -- statistical, most widely recognized, and with some exceptions, the most 
boring. Yet this is the pseudo-numeration or illusion of hard data that associates science 
with the humanities. It need not, but it does.
     The other type is "ideographic," which is closer to the case-study approach. Richer, 
more multi-dimensional, but more resistant to "statistically relevant" confirmation and 
replication.

    When Moreno asserts that sociometry is scientific, it should not be taken for granted 
that he is using the word in anywhere near the same sense as most academicians.
       My first association is that the criteria Walter mentions, starting with 
voluntariness and informed consent, is hardly ever fully valid, because unless they are 
quite familiar with the method, people tend to "bite off more than they can chew."    The 
number of people who are truly prepared for sociometric explorations seems to me to be 
very low. Maybe not in New Zealand, but elsewhere, no.

   I like your optimism, but wonder how much we can adequately generalize. I agree with 
you that there may be many sub-skill developments that can be assessed, and thus we can 
perhaps do more science on, say, the effect of doubling, or the use of multiple parts of 
self---indeed, I could imagine that each component skill could be the basis of another 
facet of therapeutic development.

Well, I'm tired, so see you more later. Warmly, Adam
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Howie" <peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au>
To: "Group talk" <list at grouptalkweb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: psychodrama research - medium length and not too hard for aChristmas day

> Hi Adam,
>
> How about you both continue here for a bit and we the great unwashed
> can delete if it gets too much. On other lists and oft times here
> folks will putr something like "Long" or "rather complex" in the
> subject line to alert us to the type of post.
>
> Oh and by the way - Merry Chrstmas - I know Walter got there first,
> being in New Zealand, but I wrote here  first - woo woo to me! I win -
> oops too much Simpsons again.
>
> And on this subject briefly - Adam you initial post has a few errors
> not so much to do with them being philosophical rather I think,
> reading your mind through your words, you are displaying your
> frustration and something akin to despair in this area and feel
> overwhelmed at the task.  I think some of it falls into the "how to
> eat and elephant" type scenario - one slice at a time. And
> reductionist research is no the only type - there is some good
> grounded theory methodologies that are worthy, there are some
> processes being developed by the Person Centred mobs - the old
> Rogerians, bless their hearts. And all your criticisms can
> legitimately be levelled at much psychology research and indeed human
> research per se. There are different purposes to research - and the
> one of proving to others the efficacy of the method is a rather dull
> one. Doing it to work out the causal, important, principle factors we
> are all working with - now that interests me. And I think that was
> what interested Moreno at different times. I think what we want to
> find out is something along the lines of "what is that that I do that
> has an effect irrespective of who gets it to happen or does it?" For
> instance asking questions like "What is the therapeutic effect of a
> person stepping forward in a group to be a protagonist?" - it has to
> be immense for some people. It has always been important when I have
> done it.........running out of early morning puff
>
> I'll go and read your article Walter - I though your response to Adam
> was a real gem - thank you. I sand a little song after reading it.
>
> Cheers for now on this sunny Christmas morning - it will be a cool day
> today - probablu only get up to 32 or 34 degrees - that is roughly 90
> - 95 with high humidity. I hope you all out there have had or are
> going to have a good enough day
>
> Peter in Brisbane
>
>
>
> On 25/12/2008, at 3:03 AM, Adam Blatner wrote:
>
>> Dear Walter,
>>   I was quite impressed with your paper : 
>> http://www.psybernet.co.nz/writing/forum-science-050525.pdf
>>
>>  It shows a wrestling with fundamental categories, an approach to
>> theory, and a breadth of intellect and vision that is rare and quite
>> wonderful.
>>
>>   I am as yet not convinced of your position and am warming-up to a
>> response. Grouptalk is likely not the place for this, as it might
>> take some analysis that many would find to be too detailed, perhaps
>> even quibbling. (Yet my response does bring forth some very basic
>> questions about degrees of objectivity, specificity, voluntariness,
>> and so forth.)
>>
>>    Let me know if you wish to dialog further.
>>
>>  Is it any of my (our) business why you seemed to drop out of our
>> field for a number of years, or should we just be delighted that
>> you've returned to play with us?
>>
>>   Warmly, Adam
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Logeman" <walter at psybernet.co.nz
>> >
>> To: <list at grouptalkweb.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: psychodrama research
>>
>>
>>> Hi Adam,
>>>
>>> David? (I missed the post you are replying to Adam)
>>>
>>> Just a quick note to link to a blog post from a few years ago:
>>> http://psyberspace.walterlogeman.com/?p=880
>>>
>>> It is on my mind as I am committed to re-writing the article I wrote
>>> on Moreno & Science 1n 2005.  (link in the blog post).  It is on the
>>> agenda for the next Australia and New Zealand Psychodrama Association
>>> Journal.  It will be shorter and more focussed on Moreno.
>>>
>>> The main point that is important here is that Moreno's Sociometry
>>> IS a
>>> research method in its own right.   Moreno was a critic of the
>>> application of science as we know it in the physical world to the
>>> world of people.
>>>
>>> I just found in Psychodrama vol III where Moreno proposes Psychodrama
>>> as a way to research a variety of modalities.  It may sound strange
>>> but I think this has great potential.  I would like to explore micro
>>> interventions I use in psychotherapy. Validity in such work is
>>> different to the validity in the physical sciences, but as you make
>>> clear in your post (below) Adam the possibility of repeating an
>>> experiment and getting the same results is not a realistic goal.  We
>>> often get something that looks like science but it is flawed when
>>> applied to individuals.
>>>
>>> Below I quote Moreno at length, as not everyone may have access, and
>>> it is a complex idea.  p  87, 88 Psychodrama voll III.  Moreno is
>>> writing in response to Cholden.
>>>
>>>
>>> Warm wishes,
>>>
>>> Walter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> //
>>> 4) SCIENTIFIC VALIDATION OF THERAPEUTIC PROCESSES
>>>
>>> CHOLDEN "I wonder about the validity of studying the
>>> psychotherapeutic
>>> situation by the 'role playing' method. For no matter how much
>>> psychotherapists and subject are attempting to imitate the therapy
>>> situation, it seems quite impossible that the situation can be
>>> successfully acted out.
>>>
>>> For by definition the major drive in the psychotherapeutic situation
>>> would be lacking, namely, the motivation to achieve a therapeutic
>>> goal." The misunderstanding may come to an extent from the abusive
>>> use
>>> of the term role "playing." I coined the term but it has gone out of
>>> hand and it is now used without discrimination. The emphasis that
>>> something is played has obvious connotations that it is not sincere
>>> and real. As a matter of fact, the technique of setting up a
>>> therapeutic experiment of the type described is to make it as
>>> "role-real" as possible and as little as possible "role-played". What
>>> are the criteria involved in the "motivation" to achieve a
>>> therapeutic
>>> goal? a) It must be a real patient and a real therapist, that is, the
>>> patient must have an actual problem which needs treatment and the
>>> therapist must be a professionally trained person. b) The patient
>>> must
>>> have chosen this particular therapist to treat him. They are not
>>> forced upon each other. c) The therapist is compensated in the
>>> customary way for his services. In our culture he is paid in money,
>>> in
>>> other cultures it may be a method of charity or honor. If these
>>> criteria are met then there should be a "motivation" emerging to
>>> achieve a therapeutic goal. The only modification from the normal
>>> therapeutic process is the presence of a third person, a professional
>>> therapist himself, who asks questions and interviews both parties
>>> during or after the session. If patient and therapist agree to his
>>> presence (or that of a jury) and if it is made clear to him that it
>>> may be of benefit to the therapeutic session, he may appreciate this
>>> modification as an asset rather than a disadvantage. It is obvious
>>> that this must be carried out in accord with the therapeutic format
>>> and an honest desire of a third party to consolidate it and not to
>>> disrupt it. The "experimenter" is a protective agent and not a cold
>>> judge.
>>> In order to meet with the special character of psychotherapeutic
>>> processes, the difficulty of framing them into an experimental
>>> design,
>>> it may be useful to differentiate two kinds of validity, scientific
>>> validation as currently considered unexceptional in the scientific
>>> fraternity, and "existential" validation which looms in all
>>> psychotherapeutic practices and is the cause of many
>>> misunderstandings
>>> of what is scientific and what is not. The meaning of existential
>>> validation should be clearly spelled out as making claims of validity
>>> only in situ, in the here and now without any attempt to confirm the
>>> past or to predict the future. It should be classified as more than
>>> art, although when people talk about the art of psychotherapy it is
>>> implied that what takes place has existential validation. Scientific
>>> and existential validation do not exclude one another, they should be
>>> constructed as a continuum.
>>> //
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2008/12/23 Adam Blatner <ablatner at verizon.net>:
>>>> My problem with psychodrama research is that it is like exercise
>>>> research.
>>>> There are twenty to a hundred components that may be  supportive
>>>> of health,
>>>> therapeutic. There is also the variable of the maturity and
>>>> personality of
>>>> the therapist, aside from the technique: and the match between
>>>> therapist and
>>>> client. I don't know that I believe that any therapy (as a method)
>>>> is
>>>> necessarily supportable. I think that any therapy can be conducted
>>>> in a flat
>>>> or even anti-therapeutic fashion, and that most therapies can be
>>>> practiced
>>>> by brilliant, medium-smart, talented, no-talented, and very mediocre
>>>> practitioners. If this is correct, then it makes research of a
>>>> method---not
>>>> of the whole process of psychotherapy---but the method---
>>>> problematical,
>>>> because it may well not be the method that's the major therapeutic
>>>> agent.
>>>>  David, I want to promote professionalism, and don't want to
>>>> undercut a
>>>> modicum of effort---so my concern about saying this is that it
>>>> colludes with
>>>> those who cop out on the whole endeavor. There are many ways to
>>>> pursue and
>>>> establish a more seriously intellectual foundation for
>>>> psychodrama---including recognizing that it is not a unitary
>>>> process.
>>>>   There are many components that I think could be researched, such
>>>> as the
>>>> value of role reversal with significant others---perhaps not those
>>>> perpetrating major trauma or doing this early in the treatment,
>>>> but my
>>>> concern is that in mid-treatment or beyond, we may not be asking
>>>> clients to
>>>> move to a more mature stance and relinquish the victim role.
>>>>  Another component (or group of them) is simply the use of action
>>>> methods
>>>> to build group cohesion. Again, this must be done with care lest
>>>> warm-ups
>>>> become merely a technique to substitute for real group process.
>>>> (Yalom
>>>> points this out.) Anyway, who else do you know out there in our
>>>> field who is
>>>> wrestling with these kinds of issues. I am not claiming to be
>>>> correct, but
>>>> rather putting in just enough of my "two cents" to try to find a
>>>> few others
>>>> in the network who are considering these problems. Warmly, Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Grouptalk mailing list
>>>> List at grouptalkweb.org
>>>> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> Grouptalk mailing list
>>> List at grouptalkweb.org
>>> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1862 - Release Date:
>> 12/23/2008 12:08 PM
>>
>>
>> Grouptalk mailing list
>> List at grouptalkweb.org
>> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>>
>
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1863 - Release Date: 12/24/2008 11:49 AM